People v. Pristell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pristell

249 A.D.2d 423, 670 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3904

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 423 (People v. Pristell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Pristell, 249 A.D.2d 423, 670 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), both rendered June 12, 1995, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 470/93, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Indictment No. 484/93, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion under Indictment No. 484/93 which was to suppress physical evidence. However, the defendant “expressly and voluntarily waived [his] right to appellate review of [his] suppression motion by consenting to withdraw all * * * decided motions at the time [his] plea was entered. Accordingly, as there exists no suppression ruling to be reviewed on appeal, the judgment [s] [424]*424must be affirmed” (People v Gary, 179 AD2d 821, 822; People v Rodriguez, 193 AD2d 821). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), both rendered June 12, 1995, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 470/93, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Indictment No. 484/93, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion under Indictment No. 484/93 which was to suppress physical evidence. However, the defendant “expressly and voluntarily waived [his] right to appellate review of [his] suppression motion by consenting to withdraw all * * * decided motions at the time [his] plea was entered. Accordingly, as there exists no suppression ruling to be reviewed on appeal, the judgment [s] [424]*424must be affirmed” (People v Gary, 179 AD2d 821, 822; People v Rodriguez, 193 AD2d 821). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 423, 670 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pristell-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack